Minimal invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant treatments

Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to co...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBMC cancer Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 145 - 10
Main Authors Chen, Dongni, Wang, Weidong, Mo, Junxian, Ren, Qiannan, Miao, Huikai, Chen, Youfang, Wen, Zhesheng
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BioMed Central Ltd 09.02.2021
BioMed Central
BMC
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients. Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach. A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013). Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.
AbstractList Background Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients. Methods Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach. Results A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013). Conclusion Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.
Abstract Background Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients. Methods Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach. Results A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013). Conclusion Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.
Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients. Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach. A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013). Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.
Background Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients. Methods Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach. Results A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013). Conclusion Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment. Keywords: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, Neoadjuvant treatment, Minimally invasive esophagectomy, Open surgery
Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients.BACKGROUNDAlthough previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients.Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach.METHODSBetween January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach.A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013).RESULTSA total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013).Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.CONCLUSIONMinimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.
Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients. Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach. A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013). Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.
ArticleNumber 145
Audience Academic
Author Miao, Huikai
Wen, Zhesheng
Wang, Weidong
Chen, Dongni
Chen, Youfang
Mo, Junxian
Ren, Qiannan
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Dongni
  surname: Chen
  fullname: Chen, Dongni
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Weidong
  surname: Wang
  fullname: Wang, Weidong
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Junxian
  surname: Mo
  fullname: Mo, Junxian
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Qiannan
  surname: Ren
  fullname: Ren, Qiannan
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Huikai
  surname: Miao
  fullname: Miao, Huikai
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Youfang
  surname: Chen
  fullname: Chen, Youfang
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Zhesheng
  orcidid: 0000-0001-8002-304X
  surname: Wen
  fullname: Wen, Zhesheng
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33563244$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNp9kl1rFDEUhgep2A_9A17IgCB6MTXJZCaZG6EUPwoVwY_rcDZ7sptlJtkmmdWCP95Mt627RSQXCcnzvifn8B4XB847LIrnlJxSKtu3kTIpm4owWhEhW1F1j4ojygWtGCfiYOd8WBzHuCKECknkk-Kwrpu2ZpwfFb8_W2cH6EvrNhDtBssNhjjG0q_RlRj9egkL1MkP16XxoVxDsuhSLH_atLx_z_p4NcLgs1Bj35cagrbOD1CCSRhKhx7mq3EDLpUpIKRhMnlaPDbQR3x2u58UPz68_37-qbr88vHi_Oyy0i2TqWqp6bRmlLOZqYVhYDRtYSYRNZuBaAwQwpBxJEy0lHBDUUpBG01rw4mZ1SfFxdZ37mGl1iE3HK6VB6tuLnxYKAjJ6h4V4djNoDNzNIQ3gCByFT5nreE1QqOz17ut13qcDTjXuY8A_Z7p_ouzS7XwGyXyl1reZYPXtwbBX40YkxpsnIYGeUhjVIxLSaWQvM3oywfoyo_B5VFlqqOsq5nkf6kF5AasMz7X1ZOpOmubuhFtQ6eyp_-g8prjYHUOlrH5fk_wZk-QmYS_0gLGGNXFt6_77KsddpnzkJbR92Oy3sV98MXu9O7HdhfIDMgtoIOPMaBR2iaYfPJ3ba8oUVP21Tb7Kmdf3WRfTd7sgfTO_T-iP1MMB-8
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1111_iwj_14598
crossref_primary_10_21294_1814_4861_2024_23_2_15_25
crossref_primary_10_3389_fonc_2023_1103421
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_024_10853_4
crossref_primary_10_1093_dote_doae063
crossref_primary_10_36740_WLek202202110
crossref_primary_10_1097_MD_0000000000038645
crossref_primary_10_1245_s10434_023_14692_w
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10388_023_01032_w
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13019_023_02180_x
crossref_primary_10_3389_fsurg_2022_981576
crossref_primary_10_4103_jmas_jmas_242_21
Cites_doi 10.1002/jso.24592
10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.18022
10.1097/01.JTO.0000275339.62831.5e
10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2877
10.1245/s10434-011-2049-9
10.21037/jtd.2018.03.175
10.1093/ejcts/ezs314
10.1007/s00464-014-3978-8
10.1016/S1470-2045(03)01167-7
10.1200/JCO.2009.22.2083
10.1007/s00464-015-4692-x
10.21037/acs.2017.02.01
10.2147/OTT.S112105
10.1007/s11605-010-1375-8
10.2147/OTT.S169488
10.1200/JCO.2001.19.4.1137
10.1111/j.1442-2050.2012.01440.x
10.1007/s00464-009-0822-7
10.1097/01.sla.0000089858.40725.68
10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9
10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.078
10.1097/SLA.0000000000000993
10.1097/SLA.0000000000001905
10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.01.086
10.1016/j.jtho.2016.07.031
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright COPYRIGHT 2021 BioMed Central Ltd.
2021. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
The Author(s) 2021
Copyright_xml – notice: COPYRIGHT 2021 BioMed Central Ltd.
– notice: 2021. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
– notice: The Author(s) 2021
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
ISR
3V.
7TO
7X7
7XB
88E
8FI
8FJ
8FK
ABUWG
AFKRA
AZQEC
BENPR
CCPQU
DWQXO
FYUFA
GHDGH
H94
K9.
M0S
M1P
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PJZUB
PKEHL
PPXIY
PQEST
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.1186/s12885-021-07867-9
DatabaseName CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
Gale In Context: Science
ProQuest Central (Corporate)
Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts
Health & Medical Collection
ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
Medical Database (Alumni Edition)
Hospital Premium Collection
Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Central
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest Central Korea
Health Research Premium Collection (UHCL Subscription)
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Health & Medical Collection
Medical Database
ProQuest Central Premium
ProQuest One Academic
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest One Health & Nursing
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Central China
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
Publicly Available Content Database
Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest One Health & Nursing
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central
Health Research Premium Collection
Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central Korea
Health & Medical Research Collection
AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts
ProQuest Central (New)
ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni)
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
ProQuest Hospital Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
ProQuest Medical Library
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic (New)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList Publicly Available Content Database




MEDLINE - Academic

MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 4
  dbid: BENPR
  name: ProQuest Central
  url: https://www.proquest.com/central
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1471-2407
EndPage 10
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_04e9ba9fdef045aea7eec4d26f43ea5c
PMC7871649
A653576519
33563244
10_1186_s12885_021_07867_9
Genre Journal Article
Comparative Study
GeographicLocations China
GeographicLocations_xml – name: China
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: National Natural Science Foundation of China
  grantid: 81871986
– fundername: ;
  grantid: 81871986
GroupedDBID ---
0R~
23N
2WC
53G
5VS
6J9
6PF
7X7
88E
8FI
8FJ
AAFWJ
AAJSJ
AASML
AAWTL
AAYXX
ABDBF
ABUWG
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACIHN
ACMJI
ACPRK
ACUHS
ADBBV
ADRAZ
ADUKV
AEAQA
AENEX
AFKRA
AFPKN
AHBYD
AHMBA
AHYZX
ALIPV
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMKLP
AMTXH
AOIJS
BAPOH
BAWUL
BCNDV
BENPR
BFQNJ
BMC
BPHCQ
BVXVI
C6C
CCPQU
CITATION
CS3
DIK
DU5
E3Z
EAD
EAP
EAS
EBD
EBLON
EBS
EMB
EMK
EMOBN
ESX
F5P
FYUFA
GROUPED_DOAJ
GX1
HMCUK
HYE
IAO
IHR
IHW
INH
INR
ISR
ITC
KQ8
M1P
M48
M~E
O5R
O5S
OK1
OVT
P2P
PGMZT
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PQQKQ
PROAC
PSQYO
RBZ
RNS
ROL
RPM
RSV
SBL
SOJ
SV3
TR2
TUS
U2A
UKHRP
W2D
WOQ
WOW
XSB
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
PMFND
3V.
7TO
7XB
8FK
AZQEC
DWQXO
H94
K9.
PJZUB
PKEHL
PPXIY
PQEST
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
PUEGO
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c628t-61f9cc2142bf37f2afc16ab8eec2ba75fa002e24e0276104f1e88715c13f40fb3
IEDL.DBID M48
ISSN 1471-2407
IngestDate Wed Aug 27 01:08:54 EDT 2025
Thu Aug 21 18:04:59 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 11 08:38:04 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 25 05:17:36 EDT 2025
Tue Jun 17 21:29:05 EDT 2025
Tue Jun 10 20:40:33 EDT 2025
Fri Jun 27 04:19:22 EDT 2025
Thu May 22 21:22:21 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 03 06:53:02 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 04:29:02 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 22:58:55 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Keywords Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Minimally invasive esophagectomy
Neoadjuvant treatment
Open surgery
Language English
License Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c628t-61f9cc2142bf37f2afc16ab8eec2ba75fa002e24e0276104f1e88715c13f40fb3
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ORCID 0000-0001-8002-304X
OpenAccessLink http://journals.scholarsportal.info/openUrl.xqy?doi=10.1186/s12885-021-07867-9
PMID 33563244
PQID 2491293284
PQPubID 44074
PageCount 10
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_04e9ba9fdef045aea7eec4d26f43ea5c
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7871649
proquest_miscellaneous_2488187846
proquest_journals_2491293284
gale_infotracmisc_A653576519
gale_infotracacademiconefile_A653576519
gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A653576519
gale_healthsolutions_A653576519
pubmed_primary_33563244
crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s12885_021_07867_9
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_021_07867_9
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2021-02-09
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2021-02-09
PublicationDate_xml – month: 02
  year: 2021
  text: 2021-02-09
  day: 09
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace England
PublicationPlace_xml – name: England
– name: London
PublicationTitle BMC cancer
PublicationTitleAlternate BMC Cancer
PublicationYear 2021
Publisher BioMed Central Ltd
BioMed Central
BMC
Publisher_xml – name: BioMed Central Ltd
– name: BioMed Central
– name: BMC
References J Deng (7867_CR18) 2018; 11
JD Luketich (7867_CR20) 2015; 261
J Kauppi (7867_CR25) 2015; 29
LS Elting (7867_CR12) 2001; 19
A Barbetta (7867_CR15) 2018; 155
L Bailey (7867_CR17) 2013; 43
W Guo (7867_CR19) 2016; 30
H Li (7867_CR21) 2018; 10
Y Chen (7867_CR23) 2014; 27
A Javed (7867_CR13) 2011; 15
GW Ma (7867_CR22) 2014; 20
WH Allum (7867_CR5) 2009; 27
SSAY Biere (7867_CR10) 2012; 379
L Lv (7867_CR26) 2016; 9
A Cuschieri (7867_CR8) 1992; 47
Z Liao (7867_CR16) 2007; 2
K Gautam (7867_CR1) 2017; 115
B Li (7867_CR14) 2015; 150
AL DePaula (7867_CR9) 1995; 5
JD Luketich (7867_CR11) 2003; 238
K Nagpal (7867_CR24) 2010; 24
N Ando (7867_CR4) 2012; 19
PC Wu (7867_CR7) 2003; 4
O Wald (7867_CR2) 2017; 6
S Pasquali (7867_CR6) 2017; 265
P Samson (7867_CR28) 2016; 11
H Yang (7867_CR3) 2018; 36
BA Yerokun (7867_CR27) 2016; 102
References_xml – volume: 115
  start-page: 564
  year: 2017
  ident: 7867_CR1
  publication-title: J Surg Oncol
  doi: 10.1002/jso.24592
– volume: 36
  start-page: 6
  year: 2018
  ident: 7867_CR3
  publication-title: J Clin Oncol
– volume: 20
  start-page: 18022
  issue: 47
  year: 2014
  ident: 7867_CR22
  publication-title: World J Gastroenterol
  doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.18022
– volume: 2
  start-page: 553
  issue: 6
  year: 2007
  ident: 7867_CR16
  publication-title: J Thorac Oncol
  doi: 10.1097/01.JTO.0000275339.62831.5e
– volume: 150
  start-page: 292
  issue: 4
  year: 2015
  ident: 7867_CR14
  publication-title: JAMA Surg
  doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2877
– volume: 19
  start-page: 68
  issue: 1
  year: 2012
  ident: 7867_CR4
  publication-title: Ann Surg Oncol
  doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-2049-9
– volume: 47
  start-page: 7
  issue: 1
  year: 1992
  ident: 7867_CR8
  publication-title: J R Coll Surg Edinb
– volume: 10
  start-page: 2481
  issue: 4
  year: 2018
  ident: 7867_CR21
  publication-title: J Thorac Dis
  doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.03.175
– volume: 43
  start-page: 268
  issue: 2
  year: 2013
  ident: 7867_CR17
  publication-title: Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg
  doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs314
– volume: 29
  start-page: 2614
  issue: 9
  year: 2015
  ident: 7867_CR25
  publication-title: Surg Endosc
  doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3978-8
– volume: 4
  start-page: 481
  issue: 8
  year: 2003
  ident: 7867_CR7
  publication-title: Lancet Oncol
  doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(03)01167-7
– volume: 27
  start-page: 5062
  issue: 30
  year: 2009
  ident: 7867_CR5
  publication-title: J Clin Oncol
  doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.2083
– volume: 30
  start-page: 3873
  issue: 9
  year: 2016
  ident: 7867_CR19
  publication-title: Surg Endosc
  doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4692-x
– volume: 6
  start-page: 159
  issue: 2
  year: 2017
  ident: 7867_CR2
  publication-title: Ann Cardiothorac Surg
  doi: 10.21037/acs.2017.02.01
– volume: 9
  start-page: 6751
  year: 2016
  ident: 7867_CR26
  publication-title: OncoTargets Ther
  doi: 10.2147/OTT.S112105
– volume: 15
  start-page: 262
  issue: 2
  year: 2011
  ident: 7867_CR13
  publication-title: J Gastrointest Surg
  doi: 10.1007/s11605-010-1375-8
– volume: 11
  start-page: 6057
  year: 2018
  ident: 7867_CR18
  publication-title: OncoTargets Ther
  doi: 10.2147/OTT.S169488
– volume: 19
  start-page: 1137
  issue: 4
  year: 2001
  ident: 7867_CR12
  publication-title: J Clin Oncol
  doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.4.1137
– volume: 27
  start-page: 134
  issue: 2
  year: 2014
  ident: 7867_CR23
  publication-title: Dis Esophagus
  doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2012.01440.x
– volume: 5
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 1995
  ident: 7867_CR9
  publication-title: Surg Laparosc Endosc
– volume: 24
  start-page: 1621
  issue: 7
  year: 2010
  ident: 7867_CR24
  publication-title: Surg Endosc
  doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0822-7
– volume: 238
  start-page: 486
  issue: 4
  year: 2003
  ident: 7867_CR11
  publication-title: Ann Surg
  doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000089858.40725.68
– volume: 379
  start-page: 1887
  issue: 9829
  year: 2012
  ident: 7867_CR10
  publication-title: Lancet
  doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9
– volume: 102
  start-page: 416
  issue: 2
  year: 2016
  ident: 7867_CR27
  publication-title: Ann Thorac Surg
  doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.078
– volume: 261
  start-page: 702
  issue: 4
  year: 2015
  ident: 7867_CR20
  publication-title: Ann Surg
  doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000993
– volume: 265
  start-page: 481
  issue: 3
  year: 2017
  ident: 7867_CR6
  publication-title: Ann Surg
  doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001905
– volume: 155
  start-page: 2710
  issue: 6
  year: 2018
  ident: 7867_CR15
  publication-title: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
  doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.01.086
– volume: 11
  start-page: 2227
  issue: 12
  year: 2016
  ident: 7867_CR28
  publication-title: J Thorac Oncol
  doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.07.031
SSID ssj0017808
Score 2.377813
Snippet Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal...
Background Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning...
Abstract Background Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
gale
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
StartPage 145
SubjectTerms Abdomen
Anastomotic leak
Cancer therapies
Care and treatment
Chemoradiotherapy
Chemotherapy
Development and progression
Dissection
Esophageal cancer
Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology
Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery
Esophageal Neoplasms - therapy
Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - pathology
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - surgery
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - therapy
Esophagectomy - mortality
Esophagus
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gastrointestinal surgery
Hospitals
Humans
Laparoscopy
Laparotomy
Lymphatic system
Male
Metastasis
Middle Aged
Minimally invasive esophagectomy
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - mortality
Mortality
Neoadjuvant Therapy - mortality
Neoadjuvant treatment
Open surgery
Ostomy
Patients
Prognosis
Radiation therapy
Retrospective Studies
Squamous cell carcinoma
Statistical analysis
Surgery
Survival analysis
Survival Rate
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  dbid: DOA
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3Pi9UwEA6yh8WLuOuvrqtGETxI2bZJ2_S4issqPA_qwt5Cmk70ia9dt60g-Mc7k-aVVwS9eH2ZQN_MZPJNMvmGsedgcZMDCbFpjKVrxiSulEvjnLjvTG1K6VuyrN4X5xfy3WV-udPqi2rCJnrgSXEniYSqNpVrwCH6MGBKACubrHBSgMktRV_c87bJVLg_KFWitk9kVHHSYxRW9BIZU-dSYWioFtuQZ-v_MybvbErLgsmdHejsNrsVoCM_nT75gN2A9pDtr8Ll-B32a7Vu1xuUWLc_DFWlcyq5GHtOHbI4UL8CDB526DY_OUJVHihVe05nsfM4zu-_j4ZOBDid6nNL3YbabmO47yfOW-hM83VEBD7wuUy9v8suzt58en0eh-YKsS0yNWDK6CpriXCtdqJ0mXE2LUytULsZmih3BmMlZBIwb0WIJV0KGI_S3KbCycTV4h7ba7sWHjAOBSgralk4i8mlMSoRIF0pFNSNUjKLWLrVtbaBeZwaYHzTPgNRhZ7so9E-2ttHVxF7Oc-5mng3_ir9ikw4SxJntv8BPUkHT9L_8qSIPSEH0NMD1Hnl69MiF5iVIdSN2DMvQbwZLRXmfDZj3-u3Hz8shF4EIdfhv7QmvHNAXRHV1kLyeCGJC9suh7eeqENg6TVmy4TQEFRE7Ok8TDOpWA49YCQZhTCsRGQZsfuT486aESIngn6cXS5ceqG65Ui7_uJpx0ufW1dH_0PXD9nNzK_GLE6qY7Y3XI_wCNHdUD_2C_k3kx1Rfg
  priority: 102
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
– databaseName: Health & Medical Collection
  dbid: 7X7
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3di9QwEA96gvgiftvz1CiCD1KubdI2fZJTPE5hfVAP9i2k6eRuxW3vru2B4B_vTDZbrwj3upnANvM9mfyGsTdg0cmBhNg0xtI1YxJXyqVxTth3pjal9CNZFl-Lo2P5ZZkvQ8GtD22VW5voDXXTWaqR72OaQK4Jren7s_OYpkbR7WoYoXGT3SLoMpLqcjklXGmpErV9KKOK_R5tsaL3yJhAlwoNRDVzRh6z_3_LfMU1zdsmr_ihw3vsbggg-cGG4_fZDWgfsNuLcEX-kP1ZrNrVGilW7aWh3nROjRdjz2lOFgeaWoAmxA7d-jfHgJUHYNWeU0V2Wsf9_floqC7AqbbPLc0caru14X6qOG-hM83PEePwgU_N6v0jdnz46cfHoziMWIhtkakBE0dXWUuwa7UTpcuMs2lhagVgM2RU7gxaTMgkYPaKgZZ0KaBVSnObCicTV4vHbKftWnjKOBSgrKhl4SymmMaoRIB0pVBQN0rJLGLp9qy1DfjjNAbjl_Z5iCr0hj8a-aM9f3QVsXfTnrMN-sa11B-IhRMlIWf7H7qLEx0UUScSqtpUrgGH0awBU-K3yiYrnBRgchuxlyQAevMMddJ_fVDkAnMzDHgj9tpTEHpGS-05J2bse_35-7cZ0dtA5Dr8SmvCawc8KwLcmlHuzShRve18eSuJOpiXXv9Thoi9mpZpJ7XMoQSMRKMwGCsxvozYk43gTicjRE4w_bi7nIn07OjmK-3q1IOPlz7Drnav_1vP2J3M61kWJ9Ue2xkuRniO0dtQv_Aq-hfzW0au
  priority: 102
  providerName: ProQuest
Title Minimal invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant treatments
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33563244
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2491293284
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2488187846
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC7871649
https://doaj.org/article/04e9ba9fdef045aea7eec4d26f43ea5c
Volume 21
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwELb6kBAXxJuUshiExAEF8nBi54BQF7UqSFuhhZVWXCzHa5etugndbBCV-PHMOA8aUXHisof1-JDxzPgbe_wNIS-Mhk3OMOOrhdJ4zRj4mbChnyD3ncoVZ64ly-QkPZ6xj_NkvkW6dketAqtrUzvsJzVbn7_-eXH5Dhz-rXN4kb6pIMYKfGcMiTEX4PjZNtmFnYljR4MJ-3OrwEUguocz184bbE6Ow__vSH1lqxqWUV7Zl45uk1stoKQHjQXcIVumuEtuTNor83vk12RZLFcgsSx-KKxVp1iIUVcUv5Ma7GIAIUVvytUlBQBLW6LViuIJbT8O86uLWuE5AcWzfqqxB1FRrhR1XcZpYUq1OKsBl29oX7xe3Sezo8Mv74_9tuWCr9NIbCCRtJnWSMOW25jbSFkdpioXxugIFi6xCiKoiZiBbBaAF7OhgSgVJjqMLQtsHj8gO0VZmEeEmtQIHecstRpSTqVEEBtmeSxMvhCCRR4JO11L3fKRY1uMc-nyEpHKZn0krI906yMzj7zq53xv2Dj-KT3GJewlkUnb_VGuT2XrmDJgJstVZhfGArpVRnH4VraIUstioxLtkadoALJ5ltrHA3mQJjHkagCAPfLcSSCbRoHlOqeqrir54fN0IPSyFbIlfKVW7esH0BUScA0k9weS4O56ONxZouy8RUIOjbgNoIZHnvXDOBNL6MACapQRAM444E2PPGwMt9dMHCdI2w-z-cCkB6objhTLb46MnLuMO9v7H7p-TG5GzhsjP8j2yc5mXZsngPk2-Yhs8zkfkd3x4cmn6cidnIycc8PvdPz1N8rYXJc
linkProvider Scholars Portal
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Lb9QwELZKkYAL4k2gUINAHFDUxHES54BQeVS7tNsDtNLejOPYZRGbtM0GVInfxG9kxnnQCKm3XuNxlNjjb2bs8XyEvDAajJzhxleF0njMGPiZsKEfY-07lauUO0qW2X4yOeSf5vF8jfzp78JgWmWPiQ6oi0rjHvkWhAlomgBN3x6f-MgahaerPYVGqxa75uwXhGz1m-kHmN-XjO18PHg_8TtWAV8nTKwgVrKZ1lhpLLdRapmyOkxULozRDL4ttgpAwjBuIGAD34Lb0MBCDGMdRpYHNo_gvVfIVTC8AQZ76XwI8MJUBKK_mCOSrRqwX-D9ZwjYUwGAlI2Mn-MI-N8SnDOF4zTNc3Zv5xa52TmsdLvVsNtkzZR3yLVZdyR_l_yeLcrFEiQW5U-FufAUEz2amiIvFzXIkgCQpVfV8oyCg0y7Qq41xR3goR361yeNwn0IimcJVCPHUVktFXUs5rQ0lSq-N-D3r-iQHF_fI4eXMvj3yXpZleYhoSYxQkc5T6yGkFYpEUSG2zQSJi-E4MwjYT_WUnf1zpF244d0cY9IZDs_EuZHuvmRmUdeD32O22ofF0q_wykcJLFSt3tQnR7JbuHLgJssV5ktjAXvWRmVwr_ygiWWR0bF2iObqACyvfY64I3cTuIIYkFwsD3y3ElgtY4S04GOVFPXcvrl80joVSdkK_hLrbrbFTBWWOBrJLkxkgQ40ePmXhNlB2e1_Lf4PPJsaMaemKIHGtCgjADnLwV_1iMPWsUdRiaKYqQFgN7pSKVHQzduKRffXLHz1EX02aOLP2uTXJ8czPbk3nR_9zG5wdyaY36QbZD11WljnoDnuMqfuuVKydfLxoe_qCCD2w
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Minimal+invasive+versus+open+esophagectomy+for+patients+with+esophageal+squamous+cell+carcinoma+after+neoadjuvant+treatments&rft.jtitle=BMC+cancer&rft.au=Dongni+Chen&rft.au=Weidong+Wang&rft.au=Junxian+Mo&rft.au=Qiannan+Ren&rft.date=2021-02-09&rft.pub=BMC&rft.eissn=1471-2407&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=10&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12885-021-07867-9&rft.externalDBID=DOA&rft.externalDocID=oai_doaj_org_article_04e9ba9fdef045aea7eec4d26f43ea5c
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1471-2407&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1471-2407&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1471-2407&client=summon